MFA

Some of us do have standards for a vulnerable 2♥ opening, so we might easlily have a bad 6-card suit and want to play 4♥.

Would always open 4♠ with this hand type.

2♣ as suggested. After a balancing double, 2♣ followed by 2♥ is not forcing, since this hand type will be assumed. So we can have a max of a bad 15 for this.

I we never play 3♥ 10, then we are regularly overbidding. I think the bidding was fine on both. If anything, south was slightly conservative on the first one. 4♥ is not always cold, since after a spade lead one would need the hearts to come in.

I'm not a bookmaker, but I think it's partnership terrorism to invent a transfer that has not been agreed beforehand. 4♥ should be natural and probably only show 4 cards since long ♦ + four ♥ is a likely hand type opposite. I think it's strange that you think 4♦ showing hearts is partnership terrorism, but 4♥ showing 4♥+m is normal (or that it is even a good agreement with discussion). You misunderstood - MFA thinks our 4♥ bid should show 4+ hearts, since partner might have 4 hearts for his 4♦ bid. Right, 1NT-overcaller's 4♥ after 4♦ should be natural. I can see my post was far from clear on this.

It would be functional, but I think it's too narrow. The one thing partner doesn't have is 4 hearts and values. So I wouldn't really want to double in that sense unless quite strong. The problem is again that with the rest of my hand undefined partner would be ill-placed to make a decision, unless he can support hearts. No I'm happy with t/o of spades. Incidently, in the following auctions I play something like what you suggest with my regular partner: 1♦ - (1NT) - p - (p), X 1♥ - (1NT) - p - (p), X 1♠ - (1NT) - p - (p), X Here the reopening double shows 4 spades, 4 spades and 4 hearts respectively. That is in a precision context, but I think it's a good idea regardless. (The board of the thread was not played with my most regular partner, therefore no precision).

No, I'm satisfied with take-out doubles here. "Strong hand" makes it impossible for partner, if it could be any strong hand. Most strong hands would therefore want to pass, which is also a sensible plan even with this nice 21 count. Take-out doubles provide a nice basis that partner can choose his bidding from. We can investigate fit in any of the remaining three suits. Partner could easily have useful distribution without the strength for initial action. As is the case with most take-out doubles, it could be off shape if there is compensating power (and a reasonably attractive catch-up plan). But what this means is that the X of 1NT was NOT "in principle a tkeout of S". In fact it can mean a variety of hand types. Sorry to be pedantic, but if you explained it as a t/o of S, I think a director call is coming. If an opponent is having a problem with a 21-count t/o-x not containing at least 3 cards in every unbid suit, then I will wish him a pleasant journey in the world of bridge. Or whatever game of cards that he thinks he is playing at the moment. :D Inwardly of course, since I don't expect his to be a particularly humourous type. B)

Are you sure it's going down? Yeah, it doesn't look like that bad of a contract. I mean, suppose you get a top spade lead. You ruff, cash two top heartys and see the Queen drop, and then ruff a heart, presumably with the forced King. A heart back may get an Ace hop, say, and another spade. So, you ruff again, cash the heart Queen, and then run hearts until RHO ruffs. It seems like you end up with nine tricks. So, let's say they cash two clubs on opening lead and then lead a diamond to the Ace and back. Now, you lose only one diamond. Sure, you now lose a heart, but that's still nine tricks. I suppose the trick is to not fall for the heart hook, but why would you? I haven't analyzed it in details, but it seems that west should not ruff in on the 3rd round of hearts. Then east can give him a ruff later. Perhaps there is a counter to this, but it's too late here for me to think about that right now. ;)

I think I like that reasoning about what the BIT implies. I'm however quite sure that an appeals committee very likely won't do so, if bidding turns out right and partner shows up with a good hand for my action. Interesting situation.

I'm not a bookmaker, but I think it's partnership terrorism to invent a transfer that has not been agreed beforehand. 4♥ should be natural and probably only show 4 cards since long ♦ + four ♥ is a likely hand type opposite.

I agree that this is about a minimum Michaels, but it is a Michaels. 6-5 is worth appreciating.

No, I'm satisfied with take-out doubles here. "Strong hand" makes it impossible for partner, if it could be any strong hand. Most strong hands would therefore want to pass, which is also a sensible plan even with this nice 21 count. Take-out doubles provide a nice basis that partner can choose his bidding from. We can investigate fit in any of the remaining three suits. Partner could easily have useful distribution without the strength for initial action. As is the case with most take-out doubles, it could be off shape if there is compensating power (and a reasonably attractive catch-up plan).

1) West should just make the bid he would always make against a spade-bidding opposition. If he feels strong enough to X then bid ♥, he does so, otherwise he bids 3♥. He shouldn't be pushed around like this. 2) Bidding 3♦ instead of 3♠ seems canonical. Why not support partner with primary fit?

5♦ seems like the simple continuation. I really have no idea what partner was thinking about. He might have considered P, X, 3N, 5D or possibly something else. Perhaps even considering what the agreements are in this situation. When he chose to bid 4♦ after his long huddle, I would say that you are free to act as you see fit.

I would have bid absent this show from partner. I will surely explain to her that I don't fancy her inquirying technique. Politely as always and after the session, of course. :)

Michaels' cuebid?! Seems obvious.

Well, I pushed the tray in with 2♠-X thinking like mad if I should pass this out. I probably would have, but I was still undecided. Like mikeh says, if it makes it'll be a story, so... :rolleyes: Partner had xxx, KTxx, xxx, xxx and bid 3♦ which made four on a friendly lie. West had a very minimal 5224 and 9 tricks are easy in spades. Cash on top spade and play diamonds. 3NT makes too but is not worth the shot after this bidding. 1♦ was passed out in the other room, not nearly as much fun as I was having in mine.

I prefer to stay optimistic in these situations with substancial values. Therefore my double of 1NT, where pass surely is possible. I'm certainly not trusting my opponents to have a patent on all the rest of the high cards, and in practice someone usually has a distributional surprise somewhere - making it a bidder's game. Passing tends to be betting on the parlay that it's flat all around with the upside of cashing out a few 50's. 'Having too much' means I can't count on partner to be getting back in the auction when it's right, if I don't help him. I don't expect (or want) heroics from him on minimal hands if it goes pass to him. Still these minimal hands could be useful for me with this powerhouse. The Hog: Yep surely, that's why I think 2♠ is a necessary move now. This is actually a fine scenario, since partner has just said he has something. jdonn: Fortunately my partner is not that easy to confuse. 2♠ is a tell-me-more cuebid that can't force anywhere due to the logic of the auction. We even have the understanding that with two possible cuebids, we prefer to bid our values. This sorts out stoppers for notrumps. The Hog: Punished badly, what is that supposed to mean? The risk here is onesided, and that is I might have thrown away our plus score. Thansformed +50/+100 into -50/-100. But I think people here are way too pessimistic about our situation.

I hate that attitude. If they know their system, the question has no effect. If they don't know their system but they're honest, the unauthorised information constrains their actions, so if anything I should benefit from asking the question. The only time that asking costs is if they don't know their system and they're dishonest. It seems completely wrong to base my actions on the assumption that my opponents are dishonest. I'm not going to discuss this to death since it's not a big matter for me, and my questioning approach at the table is pretty much middle of the road compared to others. Jdonn made a good post. One could also talk about their comfort zone. If there is any doubt in their minds about if they understand eachother, they just have one more issue to think about instead of hand evaluation. This problem might compound itself as the artificial sequence continues. At some point one of them might 'crack' and do something silly. Anyway, not asking in such situations is certainly fair play to the opps too, since they can then demonstrate their bidding abilities without having to worry about UI. So if I feel it's my best strategy too, then all should be fine.

LOL what kind of opponents are you two used to play against?? There are of course answers for it. But I shall not mock anybody, not even our beloved intermediaries. I shall retell something Alan Sontag wrote in his wonderful book Power Precision. Where he teaches a lot of bridge wisdom, retelling a Cavendish he won together with Peter Weichsel. (and also describing the system, but this is another story, a pure bonus you can have or forget). His Bridge Bum is also good, btw. One of the lessons he gave was not to ask unnecessarily. At least twice during the tournaments his world-class opps forget nuances in their own-conventions... Can happen especielly if it is a complicated pet convention from one of them - and partner must learn it in and remember without having his heart in it. In general it IS a good advice not to ask unnecessarily when the opps are having a specialized sequence. But I don't think that applies to an opening bid. I seriously can't expect my opponents to be likely to forget those. I would never pass a 2♦ opening bid - no matter my hand - without knowing what 2♦ was. Of course one can typically just look it up in the CC, but if not available I would always ask.

Your example hands are irrelevant, since 2♣ opener's PARTNER will DOUBLE (to show no values and a desire to defend) - and the opener will know whether to sit or go forward, knowing that partner has nothing to offer in the way of high cards. It is so typical of most players to day to take action WHEN THERE IS NO REASON TO DO SO - knowing little or nothing about the hand as a whole. And completely ignoring strategy. ... I'm sorry but I find your advice terrible and clearly losing bridge. Just curious about one thing. What exactly are you expecting to learn by passing? It takes no Einstein to figure that opener most likely will drive to 4M and then we will be there again. (Your delicate probe-for-3NT-auction has nothing to do with reality. The opponents are in a gameforcing auction unless opener has 22+ bal).

This is terribly backwards. We have a strong hand with a strong suit, so we act. We will often have a game here, which is why I think even 2♠ is too soft. But I'm not having those weird thoughts of partner misunderstanding my later spade bid(s). Of course they would be natural.

I agree with the 5♣ bidders. Looks like the right pressure bid here.

That's slightly harsh. In the last 12 months with different partners I've played a 2♦ opener as a) multi, b ) precision, c) "normal" weak 2, d) Acol 2 and I've played against Ekren. :P Nick That is why I don't ask, especially with a 2D opener. Surprisingly, openers partner doesn't always know what they are playing. Why wake them up. Then you get into the mess of their UI. Yes. Exactly. I myself also tend not to ask, if I have the a suspicion they arent on the same wavelengh. But I admit, asking or not asking can give some awkward UI problems... LOL what kind of opponents are you two used to play against??

1. 3♣. I surely want to get my clubs in and partner is still there if we should play game. 2. 3♥. 3. 3♣. Hopefully partner and I agreed that this is adequate for 3♣ - otherwise we should do so. 4. Double then 2♠. A direct 2♠ is too big an underbid for me. 5. 4♣. I expect to make a slam here, since partner's hand can hardly be worse than ♣KJxxxx and a card on the side.